3 ms·
That's an absurd argument. And as long as we're using solar and wind, we'll need backup from coal, gas and nuclear for when the sun isn't shining and the wind i
by lai-yin 6y ago
That's an absurd argument. And as long as we're using solar and wind, we'll need backup from coal, gas and nuclear for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. If you think increasing battery capacity will solve that, read up on the supply chain of lithium.
- dragontamer 6y agoCoal is a baseload generator. It cannot ramp up or down very easily. Nuclear is mostly baseload... not so much because its impossible to ramp-down nuclear, but because nuclear's initial-investment (site planning / engineering / regulations) are the bulk of its costs. Ongoing costs (ie: fuel) are miniscule. There's "no point" ramping down Nuclear, given its miniscule fuel costs. Might as well keep pumping electricity as long as the price of electricity is non-negative. So only gas ramps up-and-down. ------ As such, Solar / Wind + Gas Peaker combinations are very good for ramping down Coal production. Because the bulk of electricity is needed in the daytime (due to the hot sun making AC work harder), Solar/Wind + Gas Peakers will use less fossil fuels than a Coal baseload generator over the same period.
- legutierr 6y agoWhat about hydroelectric? Is it not possible to ramp up and down there?
- dragontamer 6y agoHydroelectric is great, but only when the geography + local water usage agrees with the construction project. For places like California which is facing a shortage of Water, Hydroelectric is a weaker option. Ex: if you run a dam in reverse for Pumped Storage, that implies sucking up the precious water from the lower-reservoir back up to the upper side. Realistically speaking, the near term future is Solar + Gas peakers. We should build out as much Hydro-electric as possible, but most good river sites are already built out. (IE: Rivers which have a large change in elevation to make a Dam project actually worthwhile).
- legutierr 6y agoI read somewhere recently that if existing dams in West Virginia were retrofitted with hydroelectric capabilities, they could yield something close to the power requirements of New York City. Maybe hydroelectric isn't an option for California, but in the east, there might be much more of an opportunity.
- dragontamer 6y agoIsh. The east already has the Bath County Pumped Hydro station (aka: "the largest battery in the world") Its not like the East needs more hydro / energy storage. They've already got GW-hrs of energy storage. That's the "problem" about geography-based solutions: the places where Hydro already makes sense are already built up 50 years ago. Not that that makes Hydro a "bad idea" or anything. If anything, it proves how Hydro has been tested for decades and is effective. It does mean that the East can build up more Solar Panels, since there's plenty of energy storage available.
- munk-a 6y agoCoal plants can't dynamically ramp up or down to partial capacity but coal plants can be activated and deactivated according to demand - there is, essentially, a priority list of plants in the US dictating the order in which to turn them on in times when demand is exceeded - there are also some bi-modal plants out there (some hydro plants on lakes which can pump water into the lake during low demand times and run their turbines when demand is high). Coal plants tend to be quite low on this list due to their poor scaling and obvious environmental impact - in fact for a while (I'm not certain if this is still accurate - it's about a decade out of date) one of the last entries on that list was a rarely activated coal power plant in downtown boston that had an extremely inefficient conversion ratio and was deemed exceptionally dangerous due to being located in a population center - still, in times of extreme demand it was standing ready to be activated.
- johnsimer 6y agolithium is now barely used in the latest battery tech. See Tesla